It is less often that a certain academic commencement made by some Pakistani makes all of us uprightly elevated as the ground breaking discovery of MHT and its first demonstration makes identically.
But, contrarily some naïve chaps have launched an obnoxious propaganda campaign on the internet to pollute the layman public opinion on pretty narrow grounds.
Please have an insight into the subject-matter in order to evaluate the issue’s ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ on a meritorious way—by means of intellectual honesty.
Professor Emeritus Dr. Zaki (COMSATS), Prof. Dr. Khalida M. Khan (University of the Punjab), Prof. Dr. Umar Farooq (DUHS), Lt. Col. (R) Azhar Saleem (SAARC Academia), Dr. F. M. Bhatti (MAVSO Intl.), Dr. Narmeen Gohar (Mayo Hospital), Dr. Rabia Faridi (USA), Dr. Salawal Salah (Newzealand), Dr. E. M. Nawaratne (Sri Lanka)
Discovery of Magneto-hydro-tropism (MHT) — A Question Mark on Academic Face or A Test Case for the Intellectual Honesty Essentials—Media Rumors, Communal Divergences or Utilitarian Prejudices?— An Analytical Review.
By: S. S. Paru L. L. D.
In the last two weeks’ course of events, an eccentric and strange wave of suspicion has been outlandishly aroused and stirred on different websites and news outlets, which more or less is all about assessing the ‘worth’ or ‘paltriness’ of an experiment conducted by a team of Pakistani scientists, who claimed a major ‘breakthrough discovery’ in the domains of basic as well as applied sciences.
Outwardly viewed, the experiment under question was conducted to unveil certain propositions and their assertions or affirmations concerning the discovery of a phenomenon titled ‘Magneto-Hydro-Tropism’ or MHT. The first experimental demonstration of MHT was made by the discoverer Prof Qadhi Aurangzeb Al-Hafi, who according to the Associated Press of Pakistan APP, performed the experimentation by exposing plasma and other object-testers to approximately 1.2 Tesla at an altitude of over 4,000 feet from the ground level, in a plane on 7/05/2016.
Reportedly, besides international scientific observing from UK and USA via satellite, the demonstration’s on ground observing panel consisted of inter-disciplinary experts from different institutions of Pakistani national academia.
Some of the findings were disclosed to an assorted and pluralist audience-ship who attended the event. This pluralist audience incorporated academics to laymen and representatives of national as well as international media. As one would expect, quite naturally, neither all of the specifics were disclosed to media, nor were all of the technical peculiarities likely to be made public. Some of the methodical and certain systematic details were reported to the academics at the termination of the MHT trialing event. However, very obviously, it always remains uncertain in the beginnings of this type of novel concepts that everybody grasps the wholesome in an equal capacity due to the absence or lack of the ‘germane conceptual framework’.
The Matter of Fact:
Nothing new in the scientific history and no strange to the intellectual course of scrutiny, the discovery of MHT was not an exception. Correspondingly, it also had to proceed through the same sequence and series of academic enquiries, as required for the similar propositions, theories or concepts to qualify for becoming a ‘scientific law’. But here in the case of MHT, as a matter of fact, quite conversely to the intellectual norms, nothing out of the scientific ‘course of happenings’ was made opted or tolerated to happen, in order to let the discovery proceed through the ‘academic judgments’.
Academic Judgments and the Enquiry Premise:
The academic judgments of measuring the significance of a particular scientific achievement always follow the austere and authoritative premise of scholastic enquiry. And if the process of affirming or negating the achievement is based on intellectual parameters, it necessitates and compels to follow that scholastic premise which comprises of certain intellectual assessment fundamentals;
2- Definitional Approaches
5- Scope Loci
Sadly, not even a single rule of academic judgment was adopted or considered as mandatory to make an acceptable condemnation of MHT. None of the options out of intellectual honesty based criterions turned to be exercised in case of the entitled proposition on hands.
Instead of tolerating it for a certain timeframe or allocating a ‘normal time’ required for a concept to be accepted or rejected in its natural course of action, the proposition along with the experiment’s findings were thrown as something perceived or considered as a moral and mortal ‘transgression’.
Consequently, on its very onset, the discovery of MHT became heavily rumored as an ‘object of prey’ in its infantile stages. An assortment of amateur critiques and non-academic commentators were quick to pick the issue with negative whisperings on the internet and made it riddled with as damaging outlook as it could be. Rumors-hunting is not a new habit for the skeptics of the subcontinent region, who use to borrow their concepts from internet propaganda by day and night.
Since the breakthrough was claimed in an intricate circumstantiality, it got profoundly wounded with an unquestionably and categorically ‘unhealthy criticism’ on its earliest stage.
Even though it was very clearly mentioned in the said claims that it is a novel idea, and subsequently the terms too, however the naïve critiques didn’t hesitate to opine like: “Interestingly, the terms such as “Magneto-Hydro-Tropism” and “Magneto Kinetics” do not even exist, the latter doesn’t even have anything to do with pregnancy or life sciences.
The Choice—A Healthy Criticism or an Abusive Approach?
Healthy criticisms always produce healthy atmospheres, especially in the case of scientific advancements, but the abusive style of criticism and denunciation adopted thereupon (in this particular case of MHT’s discoverer and the discovery itself), has essentially purveyed an impertinent and detrimentally damaging situation not only for MHT, but also for an abundant profusion of novel concepts and innovative thoughts, that could be accumulated vis-à-vis the field. Instead of coming up with certain technical contentions, methodical concerns or procedural charges, almost all of the critiquing accounts on MHT are entirely far away from any logical germaneness, and honestly speaking, no-more-nothing-less than ‘mere nitpickings’ of the discoverer i.e. Prof. Aurangzeb Al-Hafi. In addition, during the course of nitpicking and disparaging the person under consideration, an obscure and pedantic arrogance remains awesomely dominant and overwhelmingly visible, virtually in the whole versions of ‘commenting on’ for the sake of ‘commenting on’.
Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, the ‘hypercritical’ and offensive style adopted for denunciation have, in effect, triggered and incited a hatred revulsion and a sense of animosity in those obsessed and mania riddled people of Pakistan who are ready to eliminate, liquidate or even assassinate ‘anyone’ for ‘any reason’— being absolutely regardless of whether justifiable or not!
Reportedly, now the state of affairs has reached to the extent that the MHT discoverer’s team is receiving different types of extortions and intimidations including death threats for the “perceived crime transgression” of performing the MHT experimentation.
The Level and Language of Criticism:
The naïve critiquing accounts framed as such ‘fraud’ ‘fake experimentation’ by ‘fake scientist’ etc. means what? What type of fraud? What is meant by the fakeness in experimentation? What ‘type’ of fakeness or what kind of ‘fraud’ can be entrenched in conducting an experiment on a rabbit? Some of the critiques have even gone to the extents of criticizing the act of carrying the rabbit to air in the plane….One may scratch his head by enquiring “Is there any ransom involved in carrying a rabbit to air—and consequently the entire species would have to pay it to Prof. Hafi…? What an absurd format of criticism is it?
Almost everyone fingering the person under question (the discoverer of MHT), hasn’t forgotten to indicate that the person under discussion is carrying out such ‘frauds’ for at least over last 15 years. Plotting a ‘fraud’ to achieve what? What are the motives of carrying out such deeds? What is the purpose of maneuvering such schema-designs? Has he ever got a funding from the Government after such cumbersome and hefty exercise? Are there some commercial purposes behind all this—and, if this be the case then a 15 years of timespan is enough to scratch the drapes or ‘motives behind’.
Since the opponents and criticizers have become extraordinarily personal on Prof Al Hafi’s account, I had to be so in digging a deeper.
In fact the person under consideration is not in harmony with numerous local as well as international organizational setting-ups. Since, by compositions and dispositions this man is an extremely humane-hearted being and a loyalist and strict stalwart of morality rectitude, he usually remains ‘unfit’ in the typical organizational atmospheres of Pakistan.
As per a ‘detached’ observation and the objective measures employed for an honest and impartial finding, it remains incontestable that he is a person of his own kind who holds fast his personal convictions with an occasionally tested indomitable conviction, consistently determined towards striving for symbolizing a better and softer image of Pakistan on the face of diverse spheres, at different levels—conducting different projects for the poor disabled victims of Tsunami at one juncture and doing research for pre-birth disability causes on another instance, trying to ban the teratogens in the weird circumstances of the least developed countries of Asia, Africa and the world’s other poor populations.
The Outcome Finding:
Systematically viewed through the chains of scrutiny for the said undertakings of over 15 years, one can easily find in a fair enough way that none of the events divulges any nefarious design or despicable appalling behind, so far.
Prior to writing this article, I’ve tried unto my utmost levels in order to find any sound technical objection on MHT or some acceptable enough ethical or moral charges on its discoverer, but after a careful content analysis of the stuff available on the issue, I had been failed to find any contentious piece of the discontentments. What I’d been able to see, has nothing to do with scholarly critique accounts, instead it is all about pinpointing or rather ‘skepticizing’ and then disgracing the conductor and the experiment itself.
However, besides all, I would like to express my feelings for all Pakistanis here and in Pakistan that: nonetheless swirled around and riddled up by heavy controversies and polemic storms, the under-grown and over-thrown discovery of MHT holds the potentials to pave its way for opening new pragmatic vistas, conjectural visions and perspective developments in the disciplines of relevance. I do hope that MHT discovery would bring a real new-age-climax to the scientific world, thus fetching Pakistan’s name as the pioneering country in an innovative scientific field, for the centuries to come.